Cargando…

Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As a physical property, wear resistance of the materials used in the fabrication of orthodontic retainers play a significant role in the stability and long term use of the appliances. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the wear resistance of two commonly used materials for orthodontic ret...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: V, Moshkelgosha, M, Shomali, M, Momeni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Journal of Dental Biomaterials 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28959750
_version_ 1783265377309949952
author V, Moshkelgosha
M, Shomali
M, Momeni
author_facet V, Moshkelgosha
M, Shomali
M, Momeni
author_sort V, Moshkelgosha
collection PubMed
description STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As a physical property, wear resistance of the materials used in the fabrication of orthodontic retainers play a significant role in the stability and long term use of the appliances. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the wear resistance of two commonly used materials for orthodontic retainers: Acropars OP, i.e. a polymethyl methacrylate based material, and 3A-GS060, i.e. a polyethylene based material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each material, 30 orthodontic retainers were made according to the manufacturers’ instructions and a 30×30×2 mm block was cut out from the mid- palatal area of each retainer. Each specimen underwent 1000 cycles of wear stimulation in a pin on disc machine. The depth of wear of each specimen was measured using a Nano Wizard II atomic force microscope in 3 random points of each specimen’s wear trough. The average of these three measurements was calculated and considered as mean value wear depth of each specimen (µm). RESULTS: The mean wear depth was 6.10µm and 2.15µm for 3A-GS060 and Acropars OP groups respectively. Independent t-test showed a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The results show Polymethyl methacrylate base (Acropars) is more wear resistance than the polyethylene based material (3A-GS060). CONCLUSIONS: As the higher wear resistance of the fabrication material can improve the retainers’ survival time and its cost-effectiveness, VFRs should be avoided in situations that the appliance needs high wear resistance such as bite blocks opposing occlusal forces.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5608059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Journal of Dental Biomaterials
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56080592017-09-28 Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study V, Moshkelgosha M, Shomali M, Momeni J Dent Biomater Original Article STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As a physical property, wear resistance of the materials used in the fabrication of orthodontic retainers play a significant role in the stability and long term use of the appliances. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the wear resistance of two commonly used materials for orthodontic retainers: Acropars OP, i.e. a polymethyl methacrylate based material, and 3A-GS060, i.e. a polyethylene based material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each material, 30 orthodontic retainers were made according to the manufacturers’ instructions and a 30×30×2 mm block was cut out from the mid- palatal area of each retainer. Each specimen underwent 1000 cycles of wear stimulation in a pin on disc machine. The depth of wear of each specimen was measured using a Nano Wizard II atomic force microscope in 3 random points of each specimen’s wear trough. The average of these three measurements was calculated and considered as mean value wear depth of each specimen (µm). RESULTS: The mean wear depth was 6.10µm and 2.15µm for 3A-GS060 and Acropars OP groups respectively. Independent t-test showed a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The results show Polymethyl methacrylate base (Acropars) is more wear resistance than the polyethylene based material (3A-GS060). CONCLUSIONS: As the higher wear resistance of the fabrication material can improve the retainers’ survival time and its cost-effectiveness, VFRs should be avoided in situations that the appliance needs high wear resistance such as bite blocks opposing occlusal forces. Journal of Dental Biomaterials 2016-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5608059/ /pubmed/28959750 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Dental Biomaterials http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
V, Moshkelgosha
M, Shomali
M, Momeni
Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title_full Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title_short Comparison of Wear Resistance of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers: An in-vitro Study
title_sort comparison of wear resistance of hawley and vacuum formed retainers: an in-vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28959750
work_keys_str_mv AT vmoshkelgosha comparisonofwearresistanceofhawleyandvacuumformedretainersaninvitrostudy
AT mshomali comparisonofwearresistanceofhawleyandvacuumformedretainersaninvitrostudy
AT mmomeni comparisonofwearresistanceofhawleyandvacuumformedretainersaninvitrostudy